This is helpful because the article is behind a paywall, but it makes me curious about the ethical/moral/legal questions that arise from a tool that seemingly copies other site's content verbatim.
People might get annoyed with publishers like WJS for putting content behind a paywall, but at least they are trying to find a sustainable model in this post-web world. Putting up a paywall is a pretty gutsy move given the abundance of free news options.
This is a good argument for usage of adblockers/privacy tools, or simply not visiting offending sites, or requesting more transparency about the tracking tools, or agitating for stricter privacy laws...
I don't this is a good argument for republishing someone else's work without permission.
> I think people should be more curious and concerned about the ethical and moral behaviour of these publishers.
> it makes me curious about the ethical/moral/legal questions that arise from a tool that seemingly copies other site's content verbatim
As someone who pays for journalism, and appreciates quality journalism over clickbait, this thoroughly pisses me off. Particularly when you have users such as this one who seem to single-mindedly comment with Outline links.
How do you feel about linking to the "you're leaving facebook" redirect page that does the same thing, as far as getting access to the content without paying?
I see you making this complaint, and I'm interested to know more about your thinking.
I also pay for journalism, to selected publications. I couldn't afford to buy a subscription to all the publications on which I read just a handful of articles a month, but most of them allow you to read a handful of articles without a subscription. The WSJ is the exception here.
My question to you: would you expect all HN readers who want to read submitted WSJ articles to purchase a WSJ subscription - along with subscriptions to all the other paywalled publications posted here? Given that few will be able to justify the cost of that, do you think WSJ should be banned from HN?
On the face of it, it's pure copyright infringement. I have no idea how the site intends to stay alive once it's big enough to make money. As soon as it attracts a decent user base, it'll be a great target for a lawsuit. Moreover, copyright infringement also carries criminal liability.
